Perhaps thought experiments are a tool, and used poorly produce poor results.

I have much sympathy for your animosity towards misused trams. — Banno

That sums it up for me. Sum people approach them with distain believing they’re meant to guide everyone to sum kind of ‘ethical’ consensus. They are, in terms of ethics, extremely useful for seeking/seeing the nuances of how ‘cold’ reasoning plays its part in shifting the burden of responsible action/thought.

Ethics isn’t merely about exchange figures and summing up some total solution. Thought experiments and hypothetical scenarios are not calculations.

I think your view of their purpose is absurd. The point of ethical thought experiments is not to debate and come to some consensus of right or wrong.

I’ve been over this before quite thoroughly and it is surprising how many people just dig their heels in at any suggestion that the ‘purpose’ they see might just be completely wrong.

Any public proclamation is always biased by the perceived biases in others the proclaimer bring into the public sphere. For me the point of such ethical dilemmas framed in thought experiments (hyperbolic or otherwise) is to first and foremost be honest with oneself rather than curb personal thoughts simply because they’re uncomfortable.

People in the emergency services and the army train in this manner. The same comes into play for us as individuals. It takes work to fortify our ethical positions with actual actions and behaviors that adhere to them. Probably all of us say one thing and do another a lot of the time, but preparation of thought can have us acting more like we’d have wished to rather than simply ignoring the inconvenient truth of our susceptibility to failing to act as we, at our core, truly deem fit.

So too, I think, should philosophers. It's hard to imagine more terrible ways of thinking about philosophical problems than via thought experiment. At best, they ought to be used as examples of how not to think; or how to think in circumstances that are extremely constrained and rare. — StreetlightX

This is missing the point. The more extreme the scenario is serves only to bring up your personal take on the matter. They are opportunities to see why you think what you think, what you’d prefer to think, what you’d say as opposed to what you really think, and what can be done to balance these things ... to name a few paths of enquiry.

That's just one example. The article linked gives some nice intrinsic reasons why thought expriements make for pretty terrible philosophy. Among them of course being that thought experiments are almost uniformly artificial and, again, totally ungeneralizable. The article itself focuses on what it calls ethical thought experiments, but I think the same is true for other well known ones too. The damage that 'brain in the vat' thought experiments have wrought on philosophy of mind, for instance, is I think incalculable. But that's another story.

In any case, this is mostly an excuse to pimp out the article, and induce some discussion about the role of thought experiments in philosophy more generally. — StreetlightX

I’ll have to have a closer look at it. Clearly the use I find they don’t from what you’ve espoused.

I completely understand that a reasonable number of people find them actively repulsive - I just think they’re looking at them in too rigid a fashion.

Yes, that’s exactly what I’m asking. Apply your own mind to the the situation or are you going along with Rousseau who thought people did not know their own will, or Proudhon who believed in a social contract that did not involve an individual surrendering sovereignty to others, or Pettit who thought that instead of arguing for explicit consent, which can always be manufactured he argues that the absence of an effective rebellion against it is a contract's only legitimacy. — Brett

So you were just playing dumb. Look where that’s got you ...

Bye!

1 is wrong. 3 is stupid. Convince me otherwise

Are you seriously asking me how the ‘social contract theory’ is relevant to this topic? You appear to have given up before you’ve even got started.

Maybe someone else will help you out. GL

Next to non-consciousness.

If you would give me the offer right now to erase my modern day knowledge and return to the times of hunter-gatherers — madworld

Who’s stopping you?

That doesn’t clarify anything. Clearly there is an error in what you wrote, just wondered what you meant to say - I make enough goofs myself (just asking).

What process? I looked back at the origin of that line and it makes no sense whatsoever:

Having free will does indeed consist in being unaffected by certain things and one’s behavior instead determined instead by other things. Namely, in one’s behavior being determined by one’s practical or moral reasoning (what you think you should do), and other influences having negligible interference in that process. — Pfhorrest

The part in bold? Say what?

Why do you think? Take a stab at it as a given and maybe you’ll find something.

Regardless, what we belief is always going to be overruled by what we feel - in terms of our claim to authorship of our actions that is!

This is the crux of the question I suppose. There is a state, it exists. As Pantagruel suggested; the community came before the individual. So what is the best way to live in it? — Brett

And that is a conflation. State does not equate to community. I was quite clear, as others have been, about the difference between a community of humans and a state/nation. The interests are completely different beasts as the latter are VERY recent occurrences - in terms of human existence.

As for the rest its your choice. If you deem your position better so be it ... that is kind of the point I was getting at. If that suits you after your diverse life experiences so be it - how diverse your experiences have been is your concern relative to what you see as appropriate. In simplistic terms we’re born and then we actively map out a cosmological view of our existence in accordance with what we consider too risky and too safe. I’m saying anything fantastic there am I? It’s just how things are for every living creature. We just happen to be able to extend our concerns beyond the knowledge of our death which doesn’t necessarily mean we’re all here to help humanity cease to exist in 5000 years rather than 500 years.

Note: I view more extreme altruistic views with as much concern as I do nihilistic views - at least the latter is more clearly a danger than the former.

Here’s one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_energy_principle

Yes there was more, but I don’t regard my question as about “what we are”. — Brett

‘What we are’ is the bedrock your question lies on though. To explain further, I meant that ‘what is best’ can only be addressed with a fuller understanding of ‘what we are’ - be this as an individual or otherwise. What is more the ‘best’ knowledge we have of the situation of ‘others’ is through ourselves (quite obviously: the ‘obvious,’ ironically, being something easily overlooked!)

What we are presupposes that we exist as humans. That is all. True enough we know this from our own individual perspectives, but that isn’t strictly speaking the same thing as ‘individualism’ - I grant you that.

Instead of; how can I contribute in a way that creates the most wellbeing for the most people? — Brett

Why would anyone in their right mind presume they know what is better for others? The only way is by throwing our personal perspective on others as if it is as good as identical to others. That seems inherently flawed to me, doesn’t it to you?

My question now is, I suppose, in what way are we contributing with our sense of individuality. What do you have to contribute that would create the most good for the most? — Brett

The most good for the most reeks of a kind of pandering to what others tell me is good, be this through societal conventions or otherwise, rather than what I arrive at as good through my necessarily painful and hard journey of coming to understand ‘what I am’ amongst ‘what we are’ as human beings living a life - which is an unfinished task and remains so (thankfully!)

Maybe I’m veering off-track here?

In short, I see it as much better for me and everyone else to do what I feel as being ‘best’ than to stick to some convention of what is ‘best’ - ie. Follow the nation/state rigidly. That is not to say and don’t see the great use of social agreements. I certainly expect that my wants/needs/desires will conflict with those of others, but I don’t have to, and don’t feel it’s ‘good’ to, adhere to social standards because ‘that is what people do’ ... I find that an unethical and intolerable position to cling to. If my ‘good’ is ‘wrong’ then I suffer the consequences as they come to me without any ‘blame’ to lay at the government, state, nation, god or anything or anyone else’s feet other than my own. I get back up, dust myself down - maybe weep a little - and then carry-on imbued with a ‘better,’ yet faulty, understanding of ‘what we are’ as individual humans among other humans, and what we are as independent beings apart from others.

Sometimes it is more comforting and healthy to adhere to social conventions. Comforting and healthy now may just be discomforting and unhealthy in the near/far future. We can only assess this by remaining open to exploration of ourselves as individuals and as part of AND apart from humanity as a whole.

I’m against the idea, at its core, of a ‘nation of people’ or a ‘state of people’ above the individual human spirit. That is not to say I am against social interaction just its overreaching manifestations - which are clearly present in the modern world at in present conflict with our current freedom to reach around the world with ease (as we are right now on this forum).

There was more to it than the bold part ...

What is ‘best’ is a pointless question. The question is more about ‘what are we?’ And the answer to that is a continual process by which we engage in life (actively or passively until death). — I like sushi

Once it made sense to submit to God. The reward was eternal life in the presence of God. There was little or no reward in the present. Everything was defined by that idea. Of course it was riddled with injustice. But the state as a psychological creature, as opposed to a religious creature, does not seem to be an improvement, and it’s the psychological state that has placed the emphasis on the individual, because that’s where the disease or problem rested, down deeper than the state as it appeared. A happy person was bound to be more of a benefit than the weight of despair. So the emphasis on the individual. The healthy individual was bound to be a benefit but somehow that mutated into the idea that the individual was more important than the state. — Brett

I think there is just as good an argument from the position that religion developed our sense of individuality. The nation/state has probably exerted more force on the suppression of individualism than religion has - that said, both offer up a sense of identity which was more or less what I was getting at.

Note: Keep in mind ‘religion’ doesn’t require the belief in some deity and/or eternal life - that is just one prevalent iteration of the whole ‘religious’ scheme (as in our common Judeo-Christian heritage as English speaking subjects - we’re culturally entangled in this due to where and when we were born).

As for the part in bold ... why? This is your assumption. Personally speaking the most rewarding strides in my life haven’t been made wading through happiness - maybe you’ve been luckier? :D That said, I do kind of agree. It is not ‘happiness’ that bothers me but more it’s kind of glib use as some kind of ultimate achievement. It is a rather strange term when you think about it that eludes meaning even though we all have experience of it. That is what I was getting at with the ‘best’ point: it’s more about exploration and discovery than some fixed idea of ‘good’/‘bad,’ or ‘happy/sad’ polarity. After all the joys I have experience may pale into insignificance compared to yours or visa versa. We can only find out where we are on any scale of ‘better or worse’ by straddling life and riding it long and hard, and with good helpings of fear and bravery ... even then nothing is guaranteed, but at least it is SOMETHING rather than willful passivity, subjugation and a existential shrug at our sense of being.

I don’t believe I missed the point from what you’ve stated above.

I posed my position in terms of the many iterations of poorly articulated positions that claim to be reasonable ones in terms of ‘panpsychism’.

I have no qualms with the idea of some physical property of matter that, at some level, manifests as consciousness. In this sense the ‘mysteriousness’ of emergence is no more (in some cases less so) ‘mysterious’ than some property X that exists in all matter. Consciousness itself - us here now discussing it - is inextricable from the perceived problem as it is part of it.

We may as well argue about the universe ‘starting’ to happen or stars. It makes no difference to the logical position of the situation other than we’re more focus in here on the subjective sense - ie. conscious experience.

If thee was some physical property it would still lead to some kind of gradual progression - on SOME level. Even if it’s an all or nothing situation - much like the firing of neurons - that doesn’t take away from there being level of complexity below that are far from a simple all or nothing mechanism.

I find it to be a reasonable idea to ponder, but not one to adhere to with any degree of serious conviction (until evidence is found in support of it).

To repeat. My MAIN qualm is with people naively suggesting atoms are ‘conscious’ with the poor defense of ‘just a different kind of conscious’ - which is nonsensical. Admittedly those who have put more thought into this don’t say such things without a well articulated reason for doing so. On forums most of what I have tended to see is a wishy-washy form of mysticism that use concepts that are clearly misunderstood and/or poorly cobbled together.

In terms of a defense of panpsychism I’d look to entropy as the ultimate underlying field upon which consciousness exists. From more ‘spiritual’ perspective I also find it reasonable to view humans as that old adage of ‘the universe trying to understand itself’ - fine, no problem there either.

If however we’re talking about atoms having a property of consciousness and then when these atoms accumulate in certain constitutions what we know as ‘consciousness’ emerges ... well, then it’s emergence we’re talking about just in the same sense that every other phenomenal experience of humans is held as a nascent item - framed for the sake of differentiation/orientation as x or y.

Heat is only weakly emergent. Heat is an aggregate of ordinary motion. If you model the motion of all the particles in a physical system, you model all the thermodynamic properties of that system too. Heat is only emergent in the sense that you don't have to model things at the molecular level to get heat -- you can just model the aggregate property and ignore all that finer detail. — Pfhorrest

The point was that it makes absolutely no sense to talk about the ‘heat’ of a molecule. I am saying it makes just as much sense to talk about ‘consciousness’ at a molecular level - which some people do. I’m certainly open to the ‘consciousness’ equivalent of ‘motion’ ... which our current guesses lie in combinations of neurons and/or cellular combinations. Anything else looks like vainly trying to the the temperature of an electron.

Do you have any suggestions for the ‘conscious equivalent’ of ‘motion’? I’ve not looked at the microtubules idea for a while, but it looked sketchy at best. I think its biochemical - more than fancy enough (needless to say an atom doesn’t have biochemistry, but then some may insist they do due to up/down quarks and such ... which is the core of my dislike of what I tend to see flaunted on forums).

And Dennett uses a very particular definition of ‘free will’ to frame his position as ‘compatibilist’.

That was the reason I stated that such terms need to be put forward with great care.

His position is based on determinism evolutionary processes not some inherent ‘choice’. The issue people have is they believe they could’ve done otherwise where Dennett would say they couldn’t. In that sense he is a hard-determinist and I don’t much care if he chooses to label himself otherwise.

Nevertheless from an ethical position he acts as if he has ‘free will’ in the sense that he could’ve done otherwise even though he doesn’t conclude that he could have. Dennett doesn’t believe the physical laws of nature could’ve been different - quantum weirdness is his ‘get out of jail free’ card though.

I think this is a pretty decent summation of his thoughts regarding his view of ‘free will’:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpgCYPqPpnQ

I think I recall watching a lecture where he made a distinction between ‘choice’ and ‘free will’. Stating that we don’t have ‘free will’ (in the sense highlighted above) but we still have ‘choice’ - overtime I believe he switched to saying the ‘choice’ was a kind of ‘free will’.

Again, ethically it is perfectly sane to assume free will as a given - as in ‘I could’ve done otherwise’. To you couldn’t have done otherwise is not the same thing as believing (in a scientifically causal sense) that you had no choice in the matter.

Then there is the case of the phenomenological view of ‘free will’. Posing the question of what determines our course through time frames the idea of ‘free will’ with a particular gravitas - whether it warrants any reasonable degree of our attention is neither here nor there as we’re curious idiots so that it isn’t really surprising that we cling to questions that invest or divest us of a sense of worth/purpose (in terms of the possession of our actions and sense of authorship in general).

Maybe I misunderstood Dennett? If so please correct.

Ethically, yes. In terms of the physical world he is more of a hard-determinism with leeway given to quantum weirdness.

That is nothing extraordinary given that most scientists wouldn’t claim that a deterministic world means we can, or should, act as if we have no choice. That is just one kind of compatibilist position that has, as far as I can see, very dubious reasoning.

The position I put forward is merely that if it is our choice then choosing not to choose - under a false assumption - is pretty silly even though some could argue that it is more comforting (which I would argue against quite strongly).

Anyway, I have a good question for you ...

If you determinism is correct (in the fatalistic sense you seem to have displayed) then it makes no difference what you do as it’s already decided upon (effectively it’s already ‘happened’). On the other hand, if you are actually wrong about determinism, yet believe you have no ‘choice’ then you’re living a delusional life under the false belief that you have no real say in anything that happens to you.

The fatalistic attitude is a useful one for when we’re overwhelmed in life. It’s always easier to blame the world than consider that our actions (which could’ve been made differently) may be the very reason we’re in the current quagmire we happen to find ourselves - even then the common response is to lay the fault at someone’s door if ‘fate’ is a no goer!

As we’re effectively limited creatures in terms of our understanding of the environment we find ourselves in there is a pretty good argument to be made for EVERY position in terms of our attitude towards our effectiveness. Sometimes it pays to be fatalistic, and others it pays to assume we much more capable than we truly are in terms of shaping our paths.

Adhering to either without question for prolonged periods of time reduces our capacity to explore and test ourselves - maybe that too is ‘better’ sometimes in certain circumstances. The crux is the ethic. Your ethic orientation is ‘determined’ by your attitude toward self-reliance and your sense of ‘free-will’. Even Dennett wouldn’t suggest that his sense of ‘hard determinism’ means he lacks responsibility in any ethical sense.

I reckon you’d be better off looking more into the neuroscience of consciousness than focusing primarily on philosophical meanderings.

Within the field there are various tangental and aligned topics that tilt in many directions including determinism, reductionism, functionalism, phenomenology, and various other areas. It can be fun trying to pick out the ideas each present and which direction their personal views tend to be directed.

Start by making strict delineations between terms like ‘fatalism,’ ‘determinism’ (in all its variegated guises), and ‘compatibilism’ (in all its variegated guises). The tread VERY carefully around the use of loaded terms like ‘free-will,’ ‘choice,’ ‘probability,’ ‘chance,’ and ‘entropy’.

It’s a frantically difficult topic to deal with as most readers will come at you with a good amount of vested interest in one, or more, particular areas. A historic account of how these thoughts have developed would be a safe approach I feel.

Panpsychism is trying to solve the irreducibility of conscious experience by spreading it out through everything so that it's a building block instead of just mysteriously emerging. — Marchesk

What’s so ‘mysterious’ about emergent properties? This is where most of the panpsychism ideas look juvenile at worst and idiotic at best. Emergence is a CONSCIOUSLY observable (and scientifically measurable) property.

To repeat what I mentioned in the other thread. Heat is an emergent property, but a molecule has no ‘heat’. Such emergent properties cannot be physically measured at certain levels because they make no sense, yet somehow people believe this is a good argument for panpsychism. Why? I’d like to see an argument presenting how ‘heat’ is an innate property of all matter (including molecules). Of course the argument would require talk of a ‘different kind of “heat”’ in order to remain workable.

The main problem standing in the way of our understanding of consciousness is this silly clinging to some holistic ‘panpsychism’ idea that barely makes any sense, lacks rigour, and conveniently plays with words instead of engaging with critical thought and actual idea that possess a common and workable vocabulary.

Chalmers’ zombies aren’t much of an argument either as far as I can see. Meaning that because some artificial being could be created to act ‘as if conscious’ is equivalent to an actual conscious being. If such a ‘zombie’ was, in effect, said to be identical to a human (neurons and all) yet not consciously aware, then I believe this would be breaking the laws of nature - we cannot ‘logical imagine’ what we don’t understand with any degree of accuracy.

I’m more than ready to be combative against a lot of the ideas orbiting panpsychism as a reasonable premise - not ALL but most I tend to see far too often.

From the gist of the opening page I think I know what you’re thinking about.

Simply put it’s extremely nuanced. Generally speaking humans operate as individual beings and we navigate between what is familiar and what is novel. Being able to differentiate ourselves in a landscape (physical/social/mental) defines what an ‘individual’ is. The ‘state’ part of this is our communal inclinations - we’re not solitary animals (no animal is broadly speaking: meaning the world of every animal is dynamic and so they are never cut-off from it).

What is ‘best’ is a pointless question. The question is more about ‘what are we?’ And the answer to that is a continual process by which we engage in life (actively or passively until death).

The very fact that we split up these ideas as polar items adds further weight to what I‘ve just said. Others are quite right in saying that one doesn’t exist without the other. The way attitudes change does certainly change our parcelling up of these concepts and often enough leads to further separation for further investigation.

There is comfort and safety (possibly leading to stagnation), and hardship and risk (possibly leading to disorientation). Resting in either fully is fatal. Some people - due to personal circumstances - lean moe to one than the other; common factors include upbringing, age, sex, social statuses (within any given group), and health/fitness.

Another point worthy of consideration is the psychological role of the nation compared to that of religion. This is something that has been of significance for some time. What are your thoughts on those in line with the human ‘individual’?

So these are not transhistorical terms, and it is very much an anachronism to ask which came first. Someone posing a similar question in feudal society might have asked: who came first? Priests, farmers, or soldiers? — StreetlightX

Certainly not farmers. We know that much.

I think you were overly optimistic!

I don’t see it becoming accepted within the next century. Possibly ‘laws’ will be loosened to some degree. I can imagine, as there are now, more widespread instances of nudist beaches - meaning having festivals that were something like a ‘celebration’ of the human body (something akin to renewing the ancient Greek games).

There are so many interesting societal habits and rituals we could talk about here.

Write whatever suits your idea best (whatever your idea is). Once you’ve written some/most/all of it you can then ask yourself if it works and adjust as needed.

If ethics interests you write about ethics. If baking interests you write about baking. If they both interest you then you should consider writing about both.

There are billions of ideas out there and out of them millions of them are workable. Then, out of those millions there are hundreds of thousands who try to execute their ideas and only tens of thousands who finish the task. AND of those only a few thousand have any reasonable degree of success ... then keep in mind that absolutely NONE of those are satisfied with their end products.

Aim for perfection but don’t demand it. Write and write and write, learn to enjoy failing and the rest will sort itself out.

As it sounds like you’ve never taken on the task of writing a book before I think you’ll find it better to plan by writing one side of A4 listing what this ‘book’ is about (fill the page!). Then take each of the points from this page and repeat the process.

This will give you a better idea of what interests you, how to write about it, and give you some mini finished pieces (short essays/sketches). Most of it will be trash, but that’s just part of the process - the more you write the less trash there will be to cut out.

GL

That isn’t ‘depression’ it’s just dealing with the hardships of life. Certain environmental factors can trigger depression and some people are much more susceptible to depression than others - it’s a physiological disposition for some.

I guess you could argue that today allows the medically depressed more room to maneuver in than previously - where ‘the mad’ would be locked up alongside ‘criminals’.

Explaining this in the text would’ve helped. Maybe some other people knew what you were talking about, or inferred enough from it, but I didn’t.

The one week limit is mostly for me. I didn’t have time to do one this week but I’ll try and throw something out here later.

Whether or not you post for fun, practice or critique I think 500 words is a reasonable request for those that wish to offer critique (I don’t own the site and there are no rules so post away if you wish).

I think it’s a poor choice for a title.

If you aim to reach a large number of people drop ‘philosophy’ from the title into the subtitle OR present an original approach to the subject matter.

It’s a common mistake for new writers to obsess over the title. We cannot comment really as we’ve not read it and have no idea what you’ve written.

Most people with an interest in philosophy have specific ideas of interest. Those merely curious will likely go for ‘Philosophy for Dummies’ or some equivalent (I imagine there are plenty of those written already to make your contribution insignificant). Therefore you need to bring to the table a unique take kn the subject matter - ie. something like ‘Philosophy and Politics in the late 20th century,’ ‘the history of philosophies in business,’ or ‘Philosophy and Western Culture’.

Unless you have a foot in the door - a reputation in the subject - you’ll have to come at the subject with a fresh perspective. A simple ‘Great Ideas of Philosophy’ book will have a hard time getting off the ground without a weighty reputation (assuming you’re work isn’t simply mind-blowingly brilliant!

Clearly in today’s world it’s nationalism/religion.

There is no other method that comes close to surpassing either just yet. That said consumerism is a contender.

Note: These aren’t ‘philosophies’ though. I don’t think such a question makes sense in terms of ‘what philosophies’ when you’re talking about what is essentially dealing with specific aspects of human life (work ethic and values). I’m also assuming you meant ‘most effective’ rather than ‘best’?

Not sure what this is? It’s less than 500 words and seems truncated. More poetical than philosophical.

What was the intent?

Are you saying having experienced an altered state of consciousness automatically makes someone a ‘mystic’?

I’m doing these on Saturdays instead ... so will give new prompt tomorrow.

It’s just dedication to thinking.

Today people call themselves ‘philosophers’ because it sounds better than saying ‘I’m just thinking about stuff’ - hence the aura of pretension that shrouds it.

Flame dog in it under duress damn filling top made on a with the.

That says it all ;)

I mean logic by logic? Abstracted and applied.

All men are mortal.
I am a man.
I will die.

There are various logical schemes, but propositional logic doesn’t require application to the real world - meaning the nuances of semantics. In the purest state it is mathematical, whilst applied to statements the meaning of terms used has to be agreed upon.

Everything else is imbued with opinion, bias, guesswork, emotion, and un/happy exploration. The boon of the ‘philosophical’ mindset (so to speak) is the ready engagement with thoughts and ideas where the propositions involved are taken as a given for the sake of exploration - science arose due to certain methodologies (measured and applied predictive scheme) mapping onto our cosmological perspectives.

Logic. In practice not application.

Sure, I'm just pointing out the incoherency in your thought experiment. (You asked to hear about flaws). — DingoJones

I guess the flaw here is I didn’t make it explicit enough that predictable experimentation would be useless (no better than astrology). Without a testable hypothesis scientific advancement would grind to a halt.

I was thinking about using a football analogy where current formations became useless, but that’s really weak.

Yeah! A personal and more emotional touch would probably help.

I went for religion and science because they are inherently part of humans cosmological position. Something equivalent, as a reality shift, would be if you woke up one morning and everyone was speaking an alien language - I assume a rational person would conclude they’d had a stroke or something. If brain trauma could be discounted then ... ?

A major problem is that all scenarios where reality is altered require suspension of disbelief - maybe that is actually the key. The way out of ‘zealotry’/‘rigidity of thought’ is to nurture our ability to suspend disbelief. In that sense liberalism and conservatism (at the extreme ends) could maybe be used to represent this?